[matmat]

Phil's recent thread about playing against a client got me thinking a little bit.

suppose you have a partnership that is equally competent at playing either a natural method or (for the sake of argument) precision with a weak NT. (or insert some other two differing systems of your choice).

This pair is going to be playing in an important team match, and the opponents have seating rights. what order do things have to happen? does the pair first decide on the system they will play and then the other team chooses the seating? or can the pair decide as they sit down at the table which of their two systems they are playing?

(this is kinda similar to the baseball pitching/hitting situation, but there i believe the pitcher has to declare first).

[awm]

As I understand it, you are not allowed to vary your methods based upon who your opponents are. This is tricky to enforce because obviously you are allowed to vary style/judgement things and have defenses to their methods.

But I think the point is that basically the side that bids first must have their methods in place independent of the opposing defenses. So for example you can't say "we play weak notrump if and only if you don't use double as penalty" -- the meaning of your 1NT call can't depend upon what defense the opponents use. Similarly your opening structure can't depend on whether your opponents are any good, or whether they play strong club, or anything like this.

[ArtK78]

Another point, which may be purely semantic.

The higher "seeded" team gets "seating" rights, not seeding rights.

In other words, the team without seating rights sits down at the tables, and the team with the seating rights gets to sit down around them.

If one of the pairs of the team without seating rights chooses to play one system against one pair but another system against another pair, this is clearly not permissible. But it would be a hard thing to enforce. You would have to complain and, in the absence of an admission, have an evidentiary hearing to determine what the facts were.

Nasty situation.

[hotShot]

A team fight has a "home" team and a "visiting" team, if the match has more than one round the seating right changes each round.

[matmat]

ArtK78, on May 6 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

Another point, which may be purely semantic.

The higher "seeded" team gets "seating" rights, not seeding rights.

In other words, the team without seating rights sits down at the tables, and the team with the seating rights gets to sit down around them.

If one of the pairs of the team without seating rights chooses to play one system against one pair but another system against another pair, this is clearly not permissible. But it would be a hard thing to enforce. You would have to complain and, in the absence of an admission, have an evidentiary hearing to determine what the facts were.

Nasty situation.

sorry. where did i say seeding rights?

[Hanoi5]

I remember I had to hand out the system and then the sitting arrangement for my team before the match started, and I had to do this blindly. This was a junior event so I don't know how it works, but I guess you have to say what system you play beforehand.

[kfay]

matmat, on May 6 2008, 03:44 PM, said:

(this is kinda similar to the baseball pitching/hitting situation, but there i believe the pitcher has to declare first).

Wow, nice pull.

It's a little known baseball rule that an ambidextrous pitcher, when pitching to a switch hitter, does have to declare first.

Frankly I thought I was one of the few people who knew this.

[Vilgan]

ArtK78, on May 6 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

If one of the pairs of the team without seating rights chooses to play one system against one pair but another system against another pair, this is clearly not permissible. But it would be a hard thing to enforce. You would have to complain and, in the absence of an admission, have an evidentiary hearing to determine what the facts were.

Be interesting to see just how far this extends (is it defined in a law somewhere, or just a gut check?). I know when I run up against opps that play stolen bid, my overcalls get a lot more aggressive. Likewise I think most people will preempt more aggressively against a 1♣ opener in a strong club system.

It does seem a bit interesting where the line is exactly and how precisely that line is defined. I think there might be an issue if a director told a pair sorry, you cannot change from using feature to using OGUST just because you both made a change to your card between hands. But changing 2? or 3?

Interesting possibilities anyways

[ArtK78]

Vilgan, on May 6 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

ArtK78, on May 6 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

If one of the pairs of the team without seating rights chooses to play one system against one pair but another system against another pair, this is clearly not permissible.  But it would be a hard thing to enforce.  You would have to complain and, in the absence of an admission, have an evidentiary hearing to determine what the facts were.

Be interesting to see just how far this extends (is it defined in a law somewhere, or just a gut check?). I know when I run up against opps that play stolen bid, my overcalls get a lot more aggressive. Likewise I think most people will preempt more aggressively against a 1♣ opener in a strong club system.

It does seem a bit interesting where the line is exactly and how precisely that line is defined. I think there might be an issue if a director told a pair sorry, you cannot change from using feature to using OGUST just because you both made a change to your card between hands. But changing 2? or 3?

Interesting possibilities anyways

You are permitted to have defenses to strong club systems, and if that includes more aggressive preempts than against standard opening 1♣ bids, that is perfectly permissible.

What you cannot do is have different systems against particular individuals or pairs. In other words, you cannot play one system against Pair A, who plays 2/1, than against Pair B, who also plays 2/1. At least, you cannot have any partnership understandings that are personal in nature rather than systemic. You can't use a particular defense against Pair A's 15-17 1NT opening and a different defense against Pair B's 15-17 1NT opening, unless you can provide a bridge reason for doing so.

By the way, this is my understanding of what I have been told by a number of experienced tournament players and officials over the years. I cannot quote chapter and verse from any written authority on this issue. It may be in the laws - I have not looked.

As for my earlier discussion of "seeding" rights vs. "seating rights," I apologize. I am so used to seeing the discussions of these issues in terms of higher seeds and "seeding" rights that I must have gone right past the term you used.

[awm]

Certainly you can agree that when opponents open a strong 1♣ you bid differently over it than if opponents opened a natural 1♣.

What I think is more interesting is, can you agree that if your opponents play a strong 1♣ system, you preempt more aggressively in first chair than you would over a more standard system? My impression is that this agreement is not allowed -- that your agreements can depend upon the meaning of the bids opponents have actually made in the auction but not on the potential meaning of bids that they might make in the future.

[han]

awm, on May 6 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

As I understand it, you are not allowed to vary your methods based upon who your opponents are.

I have never seen this rule, did you mean this or "based upon what your opponents play". That is not the same.

[matmat]

hmm... wonder if i phrased things incorrectly.

team A has seating rights.
team B has a pair 1 that can change systems.

is this allowed (in order)
team A decides to sit client pair against pair B1
pair B1 decides to play the system they think the client will find more difficult to defend against *for the entirety of the upcoming session*

or, do they have to declare which system they will play in the next session first, and *then* team A decides how to sit down?

[Echognome]

han, on May 6 2008, 02:59 PM, said:

awm, on May 6 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

As I understand it, you are not allowed to vary your methods based upon who your opponents are.

I have never seen this rule, did you mean this or "based upon what your opponents play". That is not the same.

This rule surprises me as well. My understanding is that this is allowed in the EBU. We checked when there was a certain, shall we say, unethical pair at the club. Whenever we played them our system was "If it requires an alert, we don't play it." In EBUland at that time, that meant 1NT - 2♣ was natural non-forcing.

Edit: Found the permission to play different systems against different opponents in the EBU. Note that this is different than playing different systems depending on vulnerability or position (which is allowed at Level 4 or higher in long matches only).

Orange Book 10A9 said:

A partnership may agree to play different systems against different opponents in the
same event. The partnership must each make out different convention cards, and
make sure the correct ones are offered to the relevant opponents.

[awm]

My impression was that you're not supposed to vary the system you play during an event for subjective reasons. This includes stuff like who you're playing against, what system your opponents play, how you're doing so far, and so forth.

I was pretty sure this was in the conditions of contest somewhere, but now I'm not finding it. Maybe it was my imagination.

In fact I've had opponents come to my table, look at my convention card, and then decide to switch to the other table. I've always supposed this was actually okay (provided our team has to sit first of course).

[mike777]

I do not think you are allowed to play 2 different cc's during the same session.
As opposed to you can play one cc that includes both xyz over strong nt and zzz over wk nts.

I suppose if you can fit on one cc...if you are ethical we play these conventions and if you are unethical we play these conventions.

I may have misunderstand MatmatOP but he seems to say people come to the table ready to play two very different cc at game time.

[matmat]

mike777, on May 6 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

I do not think you are allowed to play 2 different cc's during the same session.
As opposed to you can play one cc that includes both xyz over strong nt and zzz over wk nts.

I suppose if you can fit on one cc...if you are ethical we play these conventions and if you are unethical we play these conventions.

you didn't answer my other question, about the relative brightness of the moon and the abdomen of a firefly.

[blackshoe]

matmat, on May 6 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

hmm... wonder if i phrased things incorrectly.

team A has seating rights.
team B has a pair 1 that can change systems.

is this allowed (in order)
team A decides to sit client pair against pair B1
pair B1 decides to play the system they think the client will find more difficult to defend against *for the entirety of the upcoming session*

or, do they have to declare which system they will play in the next session first, and *then* team A decides how to sit down?

I would think this is a matter for the conditions of contest. So far as I know, it's not specified in the laws or in general regulations (such as convention regs) in the jurisdictions with which I'm familiar. It is not, afaics, addressed in the ACBL's General Conditions of Contest.

[blackshoe]

mike777, on May 6 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

I do not think you are allowed to play 2 different cc's during the same session.

That depends on the regulations in force. As someone already posted, it seems to be legal in the EBU.

It's legal in the ACBL to play two diffferent cards in the same session, as well. See Item 1 under Part III of the Alert Regulations (although this does not, I think, extend to playing different cards based on who the opponents are).

[mike777]

blackshoe, on May 6 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

mike777, on May 6 2008, 07:17 PM, said:

I do not think you are allowed to play 2 different cc's during the same session.

That depends on the regulations in force. As someone already posted, it seems to be legal in the EBU.

It's legal in the ACBL to play two diffferent cards in the same session, as well. See Item 1 under Part III of the Alert Regulations (although this does not, I think, extend to playing different cards based on who the opponents are).

If this is legal how often does it happen? Often or one in a million played tables or one in a hundred million played tables?


I do not remember reading in a bridge article this happening once in 60+ years of magazine articles but if this happens so often we should think about it, ok.

Matmat seems to say in the OP that partnerships come to the table at gametime with 2 very different system cc's. I am very surprised at this.

1) at the very top levels I thought you must submit one and only one cc.
2) at all other levels I am surprised that partnerships come to the table with 2 full cc;s and decide at game time which one to play.

[matmat]

mike777, on May 6 2008, 10:35 PM, said:

Matmat seems to say in the OP that partnerships come to the table at gametime with 2 very different system cc's. I am very surprised at this.

i do not think that is what "hypothetical" means...